And everyone thought they couldn't . . .

The Australian Democrats have elected to disseminate their ideas to the nation with the establishment of a "Democrats' Think Tank".

Taxpayers will part with $50,000 a year to fund the initiative, which was approved at a recent cabinet meeting along with a similar grant to the National Party.

Party figures last night were remaining mum on exactly what the think tank would do.

But its work is expected to prove a fecund resource for strife-torn local councils, participants in senseless neighbourhood disputes and couples going through rancorous divorce.

The idea of using public money to fund tax-exempt research institutes for political parties is not new.");document.write("

advertisement

");
}
}
// -->

When the current government came to power in 1996, it discovered $300,000 a year was going to the Evatt Foundation - a situation the government swiftly redressed by directing $100,000 to a Liberal think-tank named after prime ministerial giant Bob Menzies.

The Labor Party still has the Chifley Research Centre, which also gets $100,000 a year, and cabinet's recent decision to spread the joy to the National Party and the Democrats was made in the interests of fair play.

Like its peers, the Democrats' think-tank will be able to claim tax-free status for any donations attracted in the course of boosting Australia's intellectual and democratic firepower.

It is unclear which former leader of the Democrats will qualify for naming rights over the proposed think tank, but as three have quit the party and one - Natasha Stott Despoja - is a fresh victim of party infighting, the field looks small and extremely competitive, with the Chipp Tank a slight favourite.

In a break with tradition, the structure of the think tank will not be exhaustively balloted among the Democrat membership then challenged repeatedly by rogue guerrilla factions before disappearing entirely.

Party president Liz Oss-Emer said last night she expected there would be a board of directors and that senators, and the leader's office, would play a role.

"Well, personally, I think there's a whole range of social justice issues that we could be looking at, but obviously we'd have to set some protocols," she said.